South Atlantic Terrain Terrain Look and Feel

[Stanlesuper]

Hi, for me satellite views and photogrametry is the future of video games, designing a synthetic rendering would be a hell of a step backwards, like orher maps !

Also, trees rendering in SA should be more realistic, and less synthetic 

[PLUTON]

Remake the map more synthetic if you want it for those who only do dogflihgt and leave the satellite map for those who appreciate the current map
THANKS

[TripRodriguez]

I literally have not flown on this map since the first day I loaded it up because it looks more like what I'd have expected ten years ago than what I'd expect today.  It looks flat and super low resolution.  I own every DCS terrain and I absolutely feel that this map is the worst one.  Unless it gets revamped I expect I'll never fly on it again. 

That said, I don't think converting the map would be the best choice for you.  Based on the replies to this thread, clearly there are a lot of people who like the satellite textures and they would be displeased if it is changed.  IMO keeping your happy customers happy is probably a wiser choice than alienating them by trying to make it appeal more to those who dislike it and maybe not be super successful in doing so anyway.    

This probably goes without saying at this point based (if nothing else) on the fact that you are asking this question, but I would not advise making another map using similar techniques. 

[rkk01]

1 hour ago, TripRodriguez said:

I literally have not flown on this map since the first day I loaded it up because it looks more like what I'd have expected ten years ago than what I'd expect today.  It looks flat and super low resolution.  I own every DCS terrain and I absolutely feel that this map is the worst one.  Unless it gets revamped I expect I'll never fly on it again. 

Sorry, what

South Atlantic must be the “least flat” map in DCS…

 

[Northstar98]

12 hours ago, rkk01 said:

Sorry, what

South Atlantic must be the “least flat” map in DCS…

I'm assuming they're referring to the lack of surface clutter (which can be quite noticeable).

[rkk01]

45 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

I'm assuming they're referring to the lack of surface clutter (which can be quite noticeable).

Either that or @TripRodriguez has only flown over the Falklands…

(I’ve never been, but on the often stated similarity to Dartmoor, I’d assume the subdued moorland terrain and brown tones are pretty representative)

[Northstar98]

1 hour ago, rkk01 said:

Either that or @TripRodriguez has only flown over the Falklands…

(I’ve never been, but on the often stated similarity to Dartmoor, I’d assume the subdued moorland terrain and brown tones are pretty representative)

Yeah, I've been to Dartmoor (and Bodmin Moor) a few times, looking at photos the terrain at least is farly similar.

[CommandT]

100% dump the current look and rebuild. I'm sorry. It's awful. 

I think satellite imagery could work super well if done right with complex and detailed terrain mesh like in MSFS, but the way it is now in DCS on the SA map, it's just outrageously bad. So if if you have to have a more synthetic look, that's fine. Anything will be better than what it is now.  Given the location, it should be one of, if not the absolute best map for low level flying, and it's the exact opposite. It looks fantastic from 20,000ft, and completely unflyable below 3000ft. The feeling I currently get is similar to the satellite imagery add ons for FS2002. The SA Map is my biggest disappointment in DCS. And I really wished it would be one of my favourite locations. 

Anyway, I hope you guys make it work in the end. Highly appreciate your efforts. Just thought I'd be honest and up front about my feelings, since you're looking for feedback. 

Many Thanks!
T.

[PLUTON]

Live 100% the current look and rebuild. I'm sorry. It's horrible.

question did you buy the SA card and did you fly on it Mr CommandeT?

[Hiob]

48 minutes ago, CommandT said:

….with complex and detailed terrain mesh like in MSFS.

 WHAT?!!! ….apart from some hand-optimized hotspots most of the Map looks plain awful up close.

Even New York looked like an endtime scenery after the extinction of mankind for the longest time with ridiculous overgrown plantation. (Does it still btw. ?)

[Hoirtel]

It's improved a fair bit recently but the main issue really seems to be the mesh rather than the textures. I'd like them to keep working with the sat textures but we just need more resolution in the mesh. The glaciers need 3D modelling like a building and the transitions from mountains to lakes are quite bad in places. Maybe this is still to be done, maybe it would need more polygons than DCS can handle? Dunno. Perhaps this map is too big? Maybe vulkan will open some doors? 

[Stanlesuper]

Hi,

Tried SA map (Ushuaia) in msfs without any world update and it's not much prettier than dcs...

Can Razbam show us an example of synthetic vs satellite imaging for comparaison ?

[Duck21]

I'm afraid I missed that poll. But here's one more vote for option 2, the more synthetic version. 

[gulredrel]

49 vs. 51 % Looks like no real preference

[Hiob]

28 minutes ago, gulredrel said:

49 vs. 51 % Looks like no real preference

Yeah, not very helpful for making any decision. Apart from - do as you seem fit. Creative freedom, go! 

[sirrah]

2 hours ago, gulredrel said:

49 vs. 51 % Looks like no real preference

I said it a couple of times (in this thread and in a DM to @Raz_Specter)

There's just too little information added in this poll, to base a deliberate decision on.

One or two example comparison screenshots, indicating the pro's and con's for both choices, would help.
 

[wowbagger]

Ya, don't really understand the point of this. If it was explicit that switching tech is necessary to get acceptable performance, then that would be a no-brainer.

If it's just a question of aesthetics, I think many would say just put all the resources into fixing the performance and leave the tech as is. This business of redoing everything after you're 60-80% of the way through development makes no sense and is a turn off to (some) users. Don't like it with the modules, don't want it with the map.

[Hawkeye_UK]

@Raz_SpecterSorry i missed the poll - however for my tuppence.

I see online quite a few people complain about how Barren the landscape is lol.  I find it quite amusing, people that haven't even been to the Falklands commenting on what it should look like.

I think the South Atlantic map offers something quite unique in DCS and also some of the most realistic looking terrain we have (i have along time ago been to the Falklands) and yes the area is pretty bleak, think the very north and desolate parts of Scotland and that is a good starter, its also bloody cold and windy, often with poor flying conditions.  The mainland itself has vast areas that are pretty remote (i've been fortunate enough to also go climbing in Patagonia) and well i don't know what people expect to be honest.  Again think for those that are EU think northern Norway gives you an idea for the area's around Ushuaia and going West.

My only wishes are not for any changes to a fake synthetic map, but if anything increase what you have done, certainly a further mesh bump in topography resolution would always be welcome (although then others will complain on performance or map size, which is a real bug bear, why limit people when SSDs are so cheap these days - i'd have no issues a map being 150GB).

I actually did a fly around yday in free fly mode and so many parts i've not even been to yet, the West side of the Andes, some great terrain to be found across the whole map. 

Think the map is excellent, however people always want something perfect yet run it on something with 8GB vram and a 8 year old CPU wanting everying on high, i think alot of the issues are unrealistic expectations and terrain setting to low (which does look radically different).  

If i had to request anything for consideration it would be increased seasonal weather with snow, however appreciate that might be impossible given working on sat images, which is fine if so.  Also remove the light aircraft shelters at Goose Green strip, they are definately not there in the real world, unless its a recent thing?  Other VRP's would be handy such as Camila Creek House etc although you can make out the location from the gorse bush on the sat image and well i place a barn there in the ME.  Also the rock textures could be more jagged in places and defined (not the set of rounded rocks that is repeated) as the rock outcrops are pretty sharp across the islands.  But yea with that im sure would come increase performance drops with shadows etc etc. 

Lastly i think the map would benefit from a good sustained marketing campaign and ED could do alot more with that for you with their youtube shorts, some of the mountain scenery makes for great shots - there is so much nonsense and negativity around the map that people don't actually know what it looks like.

keep up the good work and thankyou for allowing me to virtually fly around a part of the world i love seeing, but can't just hop to, VR does a great job these days though, it's a long way since Janes F15!

 

Edited December 20, 2023 by Hawkeye_UK

[Rudel_chw]

1 hour ago, Hawkeye_UK said:

Think the map is excellent, however people always want something perfect yet run it on something with 8GB vram and a 8 year old CPU wanting everying on high, i think alot of the issues are unrealistic expectations and terrain setting to low (which does look radically different).  

 

+1  I fully agree with your opinion 

1 hour ago, Hawkeye_UK said:

and ED could do alot more

 

Actually, if ED just edited a few missions set on this Map, for every one of their Modules (not the ones from third parties), it would help a lot ... as the biggest criticism in my opinion, came from people that dont know how to edit their own missions.

[MikeRomeoSierra1974]

I prefer the Satellite images too and is the main reason I got this map it wouldn't be the same otherwise

[Jar72]

Hi Raz specter, 

Thank you for your poll and enquiry. It is very professional and appreciated. I would like to help and share my thoughts, because I don t understand why this map is not seen as top notch.

I agree with most comments. I find sometimes it can be stunning and unique, with the right combination of light, weather, location. No other map offers it as its west fjords do. The 3rd mission of f 14 heatblur campaign shows a small example of the potential. So, I don t believe improving it will change anything. It s not where the issue lies. I mean, we always complain about performance, which is a no end crusade, but we also always adjust to our own settings. One does not buy a map because one gets 90 fps on it, does he? Otherwise, I would suggest to work on a north pole map.

Buuuut, I don t fly on it much for a good reason. Because it is "just" a map. For me, I would recommand to first push towards more content, probably less expensive to develop too : instant actions, missions, campaigns. Honestly, we all thought about it when buying it : a historical or renewed falkland war. Do this (with reflected simulations for instance, and why not a 2-in-1 campaign with 1 side on mirage and 1 side on harrier), it may become the most popular map.

Come on, its size and sheer potential is just gigantic. It seems to me it has entered in a loop, no content, not many people liking it, then no content, etc... 

Hope my humble opinion helps.

Jar

[jurinko]

MY favorite map. Lot of trees are performance heavy and cities 10x, if I can circle the Haifa and can not a SA city quarter if its size, there must be some tech with better optimization. 

Sat all the way, even I understand there is lot of work in fixing the photo glitches, various shades etc. I made few maps for Condor gliding sim and it was helluva work.